Approved Warranty Shock Absorbers Not Covered
- Thread starter MMacedo
- Start date
IndischRot said:
The geometry was double checked at Parr Porsche Specialist prior to going to the OPC. This is an issue I have complained about since last year where the suspension is over extended at speed on A roads and the motorway when you hit a bump, dip or compression. At the time no fault could be found. Over time the fault has got worse and now the tyre is rubbing, but as confirmed the geometry has just been double checked by Parr and is as it should be, however the OPC disputes this. With no other visual faults other than the leaking dampers then this is the only likely root cause.
Lancerlot said:Problem seems consistent with pothole damage to me. In which case, it is unlikely to be correctable under warranty.
New shockers and chassis realignment are needed to restore the vehicle to its former glory. []
Regards,
[font="comic sans ms,sans-serif"]Clive[/font]
Pothole damage, based on what? It's not hit any potholes. The dampers are leaking. The geometry has been checked and hasn't changed. There are no other visual signs of damage to other components, so a process of elimination simply leaves the one fault that can be seen i.e. the dampers that are leaking prematurely.
If you have a geo print-out please post it. Curious what the rear camber is. Low rear camber is great for road use and even tyre wear but could leave the top edge of the rear wheel too far “out” and when the suspension fully compresses the tyre rubs on the wheel arch. I’ve no idea if the GT4 requires more rear camber than the more pedestrian Caymans (Caymen?). And you’re running stock wheel and tyre sizes without spacers?
Did Parr comment on the tyre rubbing and the cause?
IndischRot said:
Parr agree the only thing that can be highlighted as faulty is the dampers. The car has a fast road set up and some additional camber. However additional negative camber would only make it less likely for the tyre to rub. Its frustrating as it's very easy for the OPC to disprove that the fault is not with the dampers but much more difficult for me to prove that it is.
I’m with you on this Michael. Parr are a reputable Porsche specialist with a wealth of experience in setting-up all types of the marque. Since the geometry is within spec - and assuming the ride height is set correctly - my take on it is that the leaking dampers won’t be providing the designed force in bump to react the inertial force of the unsprung mass, allowing the hub/wheel to travel outside the design envelope and for the tyre to touch the wheel arch.
If you’re getting little joy from the dealer (who will be guided by the warranty provider), as said your only course of action is to take-up the matter with Porsche UK.
Incidentally, I’m not aware that the Cayman’s rear suspension layout lends itself readily to camber change and is limited primarily to toe-in adjustment, the GT4 included.
Jeff
If you’re getting little joy from the dealer (who will be guided by the warranty provider), as said your only course of action is to take-up the matter with Porsche UK.
Incidentally, I’m not aware that the Cayman’s rear suspension layout lends itself readily to camber change and is limited primarily to toe-in adjustment, the GT4 included.
Jeff
Motorhead said:
Thanks Jeff,
Yes, as mentioned above the car has a fast road geometry set up by Parr with toe links to add a bit of camber with ride height the same as the factory spec. Obviously negative camber only allow more remove within the arch so how OPC can say the geometry is at fault is beyond me!
I'll be discussing the issue with Porsche UK on Monday and see where I go from there.
OK, so 30 posts in and you've revealed that you have aftermarket toe links installed. Where's the "banging the head against the wall" emoji when you need it?
If you spend a bit of time searching on the internet you will find other GT4 owners having tyre rubbing issues after installing aftermarket toe links. The solution seems to be to slightly raise the ride height.
I still maintain that the two issues are not related. You could install a shock absorber with all dampening capacity removed and there would be no change to the range of the wheel travel, either in compression or droop.
In the eyes of Porsche you may have invalidated the extended warranty by installing a non-approved part. I'm not saying that's fair or that it caused the failure of the shocks but it's their insured warranty so they get to make the rules.
If you spend a bit of time searching on the internet you will find other GT4 owners having tyre rubbing issues after installing aftermarket toe links. The solution seems to be to slightly raise the ride height.
I still maintain that the two issues are not related. You could install a shock absorber with all dampening capacity removed and there would be no change to the range of the wheel travel, either in compression or droop.
In the eyes of Porsche you may have invalidated the extended warranty by installing a non-approved part. I'm not saying that's fair or that it caused the failure of the shocks but it's their insured warranty so they get to make the rules.
Whether the geo is within spec or not is almost immaterial; the car has been modified from the factory spec. Some dealers take a very hard line on this when evaluating a claim under the extended warranty while others seem willing to turn a blind eye. At the risk of repeating myself I don't think this is fair or that the toe link change has a causal relationship with the shocks leaking but the extended warranty is effectively an insurance policy and they get to write their own rules.
IndischRot said:
I mention above more than once that the car has additional camber. Increased negative camber only brings the top of the wheel into the wheel well actually taking the tyre away from the arch where its rubbing. This issue, as i have said has got worse over time, with the same geometry settings. As such there is a mechanical failure that is causing this, which the OPC is unwilling to accept.
Where my frustration lies is the OPC's unwillingness to agree the route cause is with the dampers which Parr confirm as the fault. This is the third time that the car has been into the OPC and it is only now when the dampers are leaking that the OPC tells me that the dampers aren’t covered by the policy. Also they knew of the increased camber on both of my previous visits so why didn't they mention that the geometry was an issue then. If they had mentioned these things previously, I probably wouldn't have taken the car back to them a third time and just asked Parr to replace the dampers.
In an earlier post you did mention "some additional camber" but not sure how we were to infer from that that you had installed non-factory toe links.
If the dealer has not mentioned the toe links to date then, IMHO, you have been lucky. If you push back hard enough on the leaking shocks not being covered the non-standard links might be used as excuse #2.
Can you please confirm that you're running GT4 wheels without spacers and with standard size rear tyres? What is the rear tyre - some are "squarer shouldered" than others?
To expand on something I posted earlier... the vast majority of the force that resists a wheel's travel when the car hits a bump or compression comes from the springs and the anti roll bar (the ARB only comes into play when one wheel hits a bump; not when both hit a compression.) For any given bump the shock will also provide some resistive force but it's a small percentage when compared to the spring and ARB. There will be bumps that have high enough amplitude and are approached at sufficient speed to exercise the full range of the suspension's compression; the spring and the shock and the ARB just can't "push back" hard enough to prevent the bump stop coming into play. If somewhere during this travel the tyre contacts any part of the rest of the car the geo is not suitable. Or you need to accept the situation because the geo otherwise gets you what you want.
Where am I going with this? A weakening shock may be what's causing an issue with the geometry to come to the fore. But the issue has almost certainly been there all along. Or at least since the toe arms were changed. You can put fresh shocks in and the tyres will still rub, perhaps less often.
The 981's rear suspension is reasonably complex with changes in the toe angle designed into the system as the suspension compresses or the car rolls. The movement is not a 2 dimensional arc but 3 dimensional. You might need to raise the ride height a bit to keep the tyres away from the wheel arches.
If the dealer has not mentioned the toe links to date then, IMHO, you have been lucky. If you push back hard enough on the leaking shocks not being covered the non-standard links might be used as excuse #2.
Can you please confirm that you're running GT4 wheels without spacers and with standard size rear tyres? What is the rear tyre - some are "squarer shouldered" than others?
To expand on something I posted earlier... the vast majority of the force that resists a wheel's travel when the car hits a bump or compression comes from the springs and the anti roll bar (the ARB only comes into play when one wheel hits a bump; not when both hit a compression.) For any given bump the shock will also provide some resistive force but it's a small percentage when compared to the spring and ARB. There will be bumps that have high enough amplitude and are approached at sufficient speed to exercise the full range of the suspension's compression; the spring and the shock and the ARB just can't "push back" hard enough to prevent the bump stop coming into play. If somewhere during this travel the tyre contacts any part of the rest of the car the geo is not suitable. Or you need to accept the situation because the geo otherwise gets you what you want.
Where am I going with this? A weakening shock may be what's causing an issue with the geometry to come to the fore. But the issue has almost certainly been there all along. Or at least since the toe arms were changed. You can put fresh shocks in and the tyres will still rub, perhaps less often.
The 981's rear suspension is reasonably complex with changes in the toe angle designed into the system as the suspension compresses or the car rolls. The movement is not a 2 dimensional arc but 3 dimensional. You might need to raise the ride height a bit to keep the tyres away from the wheel arches.
IndischRot said:
Yes GT4 wheels, no spacers and standard size Cup 2 tyres.
All your conclusions in the post above makes sense.
When I first noticed the issue with the travel in the suspension, it went back to Parr. They gave it a clean bill of health, trusting their years of expertise, in servicing and racing these cars I trusted their knowledge in this. I continued to use the car until it happened again and this is when I took it into the OPC.
After all if its not the geo then it must be something else that's causing the excessive travel. They also stated there was nothing wrong. However the fault continued and it has limited my enjoyment of the car as I feel I can't trust the rear suspension. Then the travel in the suspension got worse and after pulling over on the side of the road after one such incident, I noticed the tyre had rubbed. When I got home I had a good look under the car and noticed that the rear dampers were leaking. OK so now I have a clear fault. which I didn't have before. Rather than take it back to the OPC, as I could forsee their response. I took it to Parr to ask them to double check the geo is correct and had not been knocked out. They confirmed this was all correct and without any further visual evidence other than the leaking dampers, they saw this as the likely cause of the fault, that they were always weak and have gotten worse over time and are now showing visual signs of this i.e. the leaking dampers. Armed with this information I spoke to the OPC about replacing the dampers and the car was booked in for a warranty claim to be made on the dampers. The OPC didn't raise any concerns about the geometry on the car or that the dampers aren’t covered by the warranty for wear and tear until I dropped off the car. which as mentioned is annoying. These types of faults are never easy to get to the bottom of and I have taken every step I can to eliminate the obvious issues over months and I am simply left with the fact that the fault most likely lies with the leaking dampers, but I am stuck in the middle with a fault on my car, that Parr (who have been very good) feels is probably due to the dampers and the OPC who are being pretty unreasonable and haven't listened to the above that shows that the fault is not with the geo, but with the dampers, which have been faulty for a long time and have gotten worse over time to the point there is now a visual failure we can act upon. Sadly i feel the OPC is finding any reason not to act upon it.
At the end of the day as I know from experience the extended warranty does not cover dampers even if the mileage is very low, I don't suppose the opc has mentioned the modifications even if they noticed so the only chance is if porsche UK look favourably on a goodwill claim, if they do they won't pay 100% it will be more like 25% if the opc agrees to contribute as they did with mine, if they are told about the aftermarket rods they will probably use it as an excuse to reject it outright
Shock absorbers/dampers are clearly stated as wear and tear items in the extended warranty documentation…. I’m not sure I’d expect the OPC or Porsche to so much about that really. Not much is covered really…!
Unless your point is that they said… yes we do it under warranty… and then they‘ve double checked and then said no actually.. it not covered… But even so…it’s their right to check…
As for toe links and geo being contributory… I think this is rather unlikely… these are upside down motorsport style dampers with quite a stiff construction usually, they are designed for the job ... however like everything made, this is just an occurrence of a failure.
That all said, I do hope that they do provide some help. All the best!
Unless your point is that they said… yes we do it under warranty… and then they‘ve double checked and then said no actually.. it not covered… But even so…it’s their right to check…
As for toe links and geo being contributory… I think this is rather unlikely… these are upside down motorsport style dampers with quite a stiff construction usually, they are designed for the job ... however like everything made, this is just an occurrence of a failure.
That all said, I do hope that they do provide some help. All the best!
So the warranty excludes shock absorbers for wear and tear not for mechanical failure or defects. The distinction is important. I actually worked in manufacturer extended warranty for many years and although the policies exclude items like this, the policy would cover parts where they were deemed to have failed prematurely. I have argued that I feel a failure of shock absorbers at 12,000 miles is premature.TDT said:
Inevitably, even if i pay for it, I feel the dealer will not want to replace the dampers without taking the geo back to stock. Which I don't want. As I will only have to put the geo back again at my cost. So I expect that unless there is a huge see change in their stance, I suspect I will have to take the car away to have the dampers done elsewhere and I will incur the OPC's diagnostic charge of £350. I would have no issue with this, however as stated previously if I had been told that the geo was an issue and that the dampers wouldn't be covered then I wouldn't have taken it back to the dealer, only to waste so much time and have to pay the OPC £350 to be back to square one.
You live and learn but the process and customer service from the OPC could have been a lot better and save all parties, stress time and money.
Surely the argument has got to be that wear and tear is not applicable to a component with only 12K miles when it can reasonably be expected for that component to last many tens of thousands of miles. The warranty states "Below is an exhaustive list of items commonly subject to wear and tear, which if fail due to wear and tear will not be covered by Your Policy". The warranty provides for non-wear and tear coverage of the shocks; you just need to fight your corner. The OPC may well have decided to take the easy way out and not put your case to the warranty adjudicator; did you get any indication that they even tried to get cover for you or did they make the decision in-house?
RRP on the shocks looks to be in the range of £550 each. Nine apart lists them on eBay for £350. If you get anything less than 100% payment for parts and labour from the warranty you need to make a judgement call on paying some percentage of their quote and then getting the geo redone to your spec or just walking away and buying the shocks elsewhere and getting them fitted and the geo done by Parr.
Plan C could be to send them to Bilstein UK for rebuilding? 100% at your expense but probably 100-150 per shock.
RRP on the shocks looks to be in the range of £550 each. Nine apart lists them on eBay for £350. If you get anything less than 100% payment for parts and labour from the warranty you need to make a judgement call on paying some percentage of their quote and then getting the geo redone to your spec or just walking away and buying the shocks elsewhere and getting them fitted and the geo done by Parr.
Plan C could be to send them to Bilstein UK for rebuilding? 100% at your expense but probably 100-150 per shock.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
